Since the divestiture of North America's telecommunication market, there has been an increase in the number of participants throughout the various fields of the industry: both facilities and non-facilities based. Additional competitors, e.g., competitive local exchange carriers (CLECs) have joined incumbent local exchange carriers (ILECs), local service providers (LSPs), line resellers, service providers, etc., in the telephony market.
The competition among competitors is carried out over the public switched telephone network (PSTN). The PSTN is the means through which the various competitor's systems work together to connect a call originating with one provider's network and terminating with another provider's network. Among the basic building blocks of the PSTN are the switching, signaling, and intelligent network service systems. The switching systems are spread throughout the world primarily as central (local) office switches or service switching points (SSP). These switches connect the line of one party to another party's line or to an outgoing interoffice transmission facility. In addition to switching calls, SSPs also provide usage measurements of calls for billing purposes. Interoffice transmission facilities consist of the physical medium (typically fiber optics or wireless) to connect switching systems.
The signaling system provides the signaling capabilities to establish a call between switching systems. The most common type of signaling used in the PSTN in the United States is referred to as Common Channel Signaling System Number 7 (CCS/SS7 or simply SS7). A telecommunications network that uses SS7 signaling sends signaling messages or packets over a packet network to exchange call control and service information among network elements. SS7 is a key element in supporting a large number of applications in telecommunications networks ranging from call control or basic call setup, to intelligent network services and efficient interconnection of networks for the various competitors in the market.
A segment of the competitive marketplace has developed around providing telecommunication services to certain facilities where a caller has limited options for services, such as local and long distance calling services, or where access to the telecommunication network is controlled. These telecommunication companies include companies that provide services to dormitories, hotels, hospitals, and detention facilities, such as jails or prisons.
As an example, detention facilities generally require various levels of security over the calls made by inmates. Typically, the detention facility would contract with a service provider (DFSP), which is capable of providing the specialized telecommunication services that detention facilities might need, for a communications system that allows the inmate to interface with the PSTN, while maintaining an appropriate level of security over the call. Because of the increased level of security over the calls, these service providers typically charge an inmate higher rates for long distance and local connections over the PSTN than would normally be charged by other carriers in the competitive marketplace.
In order to establish service at a detention facility, the DFSP would interpose its network and/or call processing system between the PSTN and an inmate in the detention facility. The DFSP would typically provide its phone equipment and call processing for an inmate's calls through a network that interfaces over a high capacity line, such as a T1 line, with the PSTN. Once on the PSTN, the calls are ultimately terminated at the desired telephone number through the use of another service provider's lines and equipment, which is set up and connected by the use of the intelligent network elements described hereinabove. Thus, the inmate would be granted access to other calling companies networks through the DFSP network and call processing system.
This system may include various features aimed at providing specialized services that may be desirable in a detention facility. These services may include call treatment measures such as increased security over the calls, caller identification, controlled access between the PSTN network and the detention facility telecommunications network, recording the inmate's phone conversations, maintaining a database of all calls to and from the facility/inmates, notifying the appropriate authorities about a call in a timely manner, and account verification for call payment information. This listing of services is not meant to be exhaustive of all services that may be provided or requested.
After initiation of a phone call either by or to an inmate, an interaction begins with a call processing system of the DFSP, wherein the appropriate call treatment measures are determined. It should be understood that various levels of security and call treatment measures may be invoked for different inmates and different facilities. As an example, the process may start with an inmate accessing the DFSP network by trying to place a call at one of the telephone terminals located at various locations in the detention facility and designated for use by the inmates to make telephone calls. The call may begin with the inmate identifying him/herself through the use of a personal identification number, password, or some other means of identification whereby the DFSP can verify the identify of the inmate for use in further call verification procedure.
A call verification procedure that might occur after the inmate enters the PIN number is a determination concerning the method of payment for the call. Some of the methods for paying for the call include a prepaid account credited with a certain amount of money against which the call charges will be debited, alternative call billing (e.g., reversing the call charges (a collect call) or billing the call to a third party), or the use of a detention facility account (e.g., the detention facility may have authorized payment for the call, such as a call to the prisoner's lawyer). If the call is an alternatively billed call, then call processing may make a determination about the probability that appropriate funds may be collected from a responsible party (e.g., the called party or a third party).
A collect call is a service provided to telephone customers, wherein another party, e.g., called party, is billed for the call as opposed to the calling party or originating line number as are routinely billed. Upon receiving a request for a collect call, the telephone company ultimately responsible for billing the calling party (e.g., calling party billing entity), will attempt to identify the billing entity ultimately responsible for billing the called party (e.g., called party billing entity). This information is often obtainable through a line information database (LIDB), and the information can be obtained either directly, or indirectly, from fields such as operating company numbers (OCNs), account owner (AO), originating line number screening (OLNS), line providers, alternative billing services, number portability, calling features, etcetera.
If the identity of the called party's billing entity is unobtainable, the calling party's billing entity may be reluctant to connect the call between the parties, because of the risk involved with connecting a collect call to a called party having an unidentified billing entity. This may result in a calling party's billing entity choosing not to complete the connection for the call and thus, forgo potential revenues. The loss of revenue may be due to the inability to accurately bill for services provided, or the perception that the called party to be billed is not a credit worthy consumer.
The financial risk associated with a collect call may be overcome by having the inmate establish a prepaid account. Likewise, prepaid accounts may be established to facilitate calls where a called party's billing entity cannot be billed (e.g., does not have a billing agreement with the calling party's billing entity, does not support collect calls, etc.). It is often in the best interest of an inmate wishing to insure that his/her calls are not blocked because of collection risk or other factors to establish a prepaid account, wherein a certain amount of money is deposited in an account for the benefit of the inmate to pay for the charges incurred during a telephone call. Typically, the inmate, or a friend, or a family member would set up and fund a prepaid account with the DFSP, thus avoiding the problems associated with collection risk, and providing a method of call payment that can be easily verified by the call processing system.
Information about whether an inmate has a prepaid account may be stored in a database, such as may be created and/or maintained by the DFSP. Such a database may also contain other information about the inmate, such as other account information, the level of security that should be maintained over the call, a list of numbers the inmate has been authorized to call, a list of numbers the inmate is not allowed to call (such a the judge, or victim), whether the call should be recorded, and whether a person at the detention facility or at a governmental agency should be notified about the call. Thus, depending on the level of security that is to be maintained over the call and the particular type of facility and/or inmate, these and other security and/or call treatment measures may be invoked. Similar database entries may be used with respect to inmates which do not have a prepaid account (e.g., inmates calling numbers for which collect calling LEC billing is available).
One of the security measures that may be invoked during call processing would be cross referencing the number dialed by the inmate against a list of numbers that the inmate is prohibited from calling. This list may include the numbers of persons such as the judge, or the crime victim. Prison administrators are often interested in knowing the termination point for inmate calls, such as to prevent calls to certain individuals (e.g., gang members), certain areas (e.g., high crime areas), certain facilities (e.g., other prison facilities), etc. Moreover, the identity of the called party, such as may be obtained through the aforementioned BTN, is often of interest to investigators. Accordingly, if the inmate attempts to call an unauthorized number or otherwise attempts a call posing a security risk, the call may be blocked before a connection is established and/or the call can be reported to prison authorities. If a call is allowed to proceed, a decision may also be made to record the call, so that the contents of the call can be reported to the appropriate authorities. As can be seen from the above description, it is often important to know both the number dialed and the actual termination point of the call in order to prevent the inmate from circumventing the security measures.
As a result of these added security measures, the DFSP have higher operating costs, which are recouped to some extent through higher calling charges than would ordinarily be charged in the competitive marketplace. Unfortunately, enhanced calling services have been misused by certain businesses and individuals in an attempt to profit by arbitraging the higher rates charged by the DFSP. In order to arbitrage the higher rates, an arbitrage business might obtain, from a LEC or other competitor, a phone number in the LEC's network that is local or intralata to the prison facility. The arbitrage business may then establish a remote call forwarding (RCF) service at that phone number to forward calls to a different termination point. Accordingly, the call may appear to the DFSP to be a local call, charged at a rate lower than a long distance call, when in fact the call terminates at a location which would result in a long distance rate by the DFSP. However, because the arbitrage business is not providing the security services of the DFSP, the arbitrage business provides this long distance link at closer to market rates than does the DFSP.
An inmate, or a friend or family member of the inmate, who desires to avoid the higher long distance rates charged by the DFSP, could then use the local number where a RCF platform has been established to provide the RCF service. This call would be charged by the DFSP at a rate for local call, and received by the RCF platform, which would then forward the call to the desired number. By charging a rate for the call that is lower than the rate that charged by the DFSP for a long distance call, the business operating the RCF service could thus profit at the expense of the DFSP, while the inmate saves an amount equal to the difference between the higher and lower rate. However, since the true termination point of the call is different from the called number, the DFSP not only loses revenue, but also loses visibility over the true destination where the telephone call is terminated and thus security may be compromised.
Usually the destination phone number that the inmate is trying to reach would belong to a person, such as a family member or a friend of the inmate, who lives at a location where a call would be charged at a long distance rate by the DFSP. When a RCF business establishes a local telephone number at a location, they typically provide their own Billing Name and Address (BNA) to the Local Exchange Carrier (LEC). Then, they place a RCF platform that provides the RCF services at that location.
The RCF platforms often operate through the use of a Direct Inward Dialing (DID) circuit. A call received at the DID circuit is preceded by a packet of information that contains the number dialed. The remote call forwarding platform receives the call and looks up the corresponding long distance number and then forwards the call to that number. Thus, when the prisoner calls the assigned local number, the platform receives the call and automatically forwards the call to the telephone number of the family member or friend programmed as the final destination number for that call.
As previously discussed this arbitrage activity causes several problems for the DFSP and the prison facility. Primarily the call forwarding activity diminishes the level of security over the call by terminating the call at a location remote from the called number, causing the service provider to lose visibility of the final termination point of the call. Thus, the service provider is unable to collect accurate information regarding the call activity in order to block the call, report the call to the prison facility, etc. Another consideration for the service provider is the revenue lost to these call forwarding businesses.